Quantifying Out-of-Training Uncertainty of Neural-Network based Turbulence Closures
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Neural-Network (NN) based turbulence closures have been developed for being used as pre-trained surrogates for traditional turbulence closures, with the aim to increase computational efficiency and prediction accuracy of CFD simulations. The bottleneck to the widespread adaptation of these ML-based closures is the relative lack of uncertainty quantification (UQ) for these models. Especially, quantifying uncertainties associated with out-of-training inputs, that is when the ML-based turbulence closures are queried on inputs outside their training data regime. In the current paper, a published algebraic turbulence closure1 has been utilized to compare the quality of epistemic UQ between three NN-based methods and Gaussian Process (GP). The three NN-based methods explored are Deep Ensembles (DE), Monte-Carlo Dropout (MCD), and Stochastic Variational Inference (SVI). In the in-training results, we find the exact GP performs the best in accuracy with a Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of 2.14 · 10-5 followed by the DE with an RMSE of 4.59 · 10-4. Next, the paper discusses the performance of the four methods for quantifying out-of-training uncertainties. For performance, the Exact GP yet again is the best in performance, but has similar performance to the DE in the out-of-training regions. In UQ accuracy for the out-of-training case, SVI and DE hold the best miscalibration error for one of the cases. However, the DE performs the best in Negative Log-Likelihood for both out-of-training cases. We observe that for the current problem, in terms of accuracy GP > DE > SV I > MCD. The DE results are relatively robust and provide intuitive UQ estimates, despite performing naive ensembling. In terms of computational cost, the GP is significantly higher than the NN-based methods with a O(n3) computational complexity for each training step
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2025.
Builds on
16 of 53 references.
References · 16
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
- 2021A Survey of Uncertainty in Deep Neural Networkscited by 680
- 2018GPyTorch: Blackbox Matrix-Matrix Gaussian Process Inference with GPU Accelerationcited by 609
- 2019Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspectivecited by 443
- 2018Accurate Uncertainties for Deep Learning Using Calibrated Regressioncited by 422
- 2021What Are Bayesian Neural Network Posteriors Really Like?cited by 308
- 2017Concrete Dropoutcited by 227
- 2021Enhancing Computational Fluid Dynamics with Machine Learningcited by 138
- 2019Modeling the Dynamics of PDE Systems with Physics-Constrained Deep Auto-Regressive Networkscited by 129
- 2021Repulsive Deep Ensembles are Bayesiancited by 104
- 2020All You Need is a Good Functional Prior for Bayesian Deep Learningcited by 61
4 more
- 2021Deep Ensembles from a Bayesian Perspectivecited by 27
- 2018Quantifying model form uncertainty in Reynolds-averaged turbulence models with Bayesian deep neural networkscited by 20
- 2024Empowering Bayesian Neural Networks with Functional Priors through Anchored Ensembling for Mechanics Surrogate Modeling Applicationscited by 2
- 2025Uncertainty Quantification for Data-Driven Machine Learning Models in Nuclear Engineering Applications: Where We Are and What Do We Need?cited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.